The Defendant was a former Nurse, who, after being struck off the Nursing Register had brought a series of unsuccessful employment tribunal claims against the NMC and the NHS. The Claimant applied for a CRO to prevent any more claims being brought. The Defendant argued that under Civil Procedure Rule 3.11 a CRO could only apply to claims in the County and High Court, not employment tribunal claims.

The Judge decided that the power to make a CRO did not derive from CPR 3.11 but was part of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. This allowed the High Court to make orders to assist the administration of justice by inferior courts including the employment tribunal where the employment tribunal did not itself have the necessary power. Vexatious claims needed to be prevented in the employment tribunal just as much as in the Civil Courts, and since the employment tribunal did not have the power to make a CRO itself, the High Court could make one for it.

Daniel Barnett is a barrister at Outer Temple Chambers, with over 15 years' experience defending companies facing employment tribunal claims and associated commercial disputes. He is listed as a leading employment barrister in the ‘Legal 500′, and described in the Times Law Supplement as having “carved out a strong reputation”.

Daniel regularly advises and represents large and small businesses in discrimination claims, TUPE problems, team moves, removal of confidential business information, and unfair dismissal disputes. He has been appointed as employment law advisor to Acas since 2004, and is the author or co-author of seven legal textbooks.